googologywikiaorg-20200223-history
Talk:Barbogogoog
What a tiny little microscopic number you have there. Anyone else think this little guppy should be tossed back? No sources. btw, this number can be expressed concisely as 658577560(10^3520-1)/99999999+8. It only contains 3521 digits. If you can write out the number of digits a number has in decimal ... it's very small googologically speaking. Sbiis Saibian (talk) 02:17, October 22, 2014 (UTC) What about Barbogogoogplex? Samuel2097 (talk) 02:24, October 22, 2014 (UTC) Still very tiny by googological standards. It's only around 10^10^3521, placing it between a googolplexichime ''and a ''googolplexitoll. Numbers like a googol ''and ''googolplex ''have not been the gold standard at least as early as 1950, when Steinhaus coined the ''mega ''and ''megiston, ''and probably much earlier than that. The people at Iteror.org, for example, have argued that tetration was known and understood as early as around the 9th century. That alone would make a ''googolplex ''obsolete. The Ackermann function defined in 1928 is already powerful enough to mop the floor with anything involving power towers. So yeah ... even before the ''googolplex ''was coined it was already ''not exactly ''cutting edge! Sbiis Saibian (talk) 02:50, October 22, 2014 (UTC) Understood. I apologize for my naïveté... however I would appreciate some kind of Googology 101 course on this wiki, because I have no idea how to use the functions/notations. Samuel2097 (talk) 03:05, October 22, 2014 (UTC) :theres not a lot of googology learning materials because dear god are they hard to write. maybe sbiis's site will help you. the articles are hella long though it's vel 03:07, October 22, 2014 (UTC) ::i think sbiis's site is a GREAT resource on large numbers with its exceptional detail, there's also robert munafo 's site and mine . Cookiefonster (talk) 11:20, October 22, 2014 (UTC) ::I think a googology101 course is a good idea. I made one somewhat poor attempt at this once before. Perhaps I'll create another series. There are just somethings about googology that need to cleared up early on because they are extremely counter-intuitive. Remember it's not that a ''barbogogoogplex ''is actually a tiny number. It's tremendously huge by any ''ordinary standards. It's just that there are numbers out there so much bigger ... that it completely transcends the kind of largeness ''barbogogoogplex ''represents. Like even if you raise a ''barbogogoogplex ''to it's own power ... it's still not going to get you anywhere close to the size of these numbers. Not even if you take N raise it to it's own power, get another number raise it to its own power, and so on ... and do this a ''million billion barbogogoogplex times ''... still nowhere near these numbers. ::So yeah, perhaps some sort of crash course is in order Sbiis Saibian (talk) 22:10, October 22, 2014 (UTC) ::My apologies if I was a little harsh. We occasionally get people you simply spam our wiki with random stuff because they think that this wiki is either complete nonsense or some sort of free for all. The only real problem with your number is simply that it had no source. New entries must always have a link to a usage of it outside of the wiki, even if you are the only one who made use of it. As Vel pointed out, the blog is a good way to get started, since this doesn't count as an encyclopedia entry. The only other problem is basically aesthetic considerations. (1) It can be expressed more compactly, as I did, and (2) You definition is inconvenient to work with as a long string of digits. Numbers which aren't particularly large but have very long descriptions are generally frowned upon. Your heading into what's known as "salad number" territory in our community. ::On that note I began my Googology101 blog if your interested. So far I've only written Part I which basically just defines what the endevour of googology actually is. In later parts I'll get to the nuts and bolts of how to make progress in googology. Sbiis Saibian (talk) 01:09, October 23, 2014 (UTC) ::